Skip to main content

About your Search

20131202
20131210
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
consecutive terms. if i could, karzai has the same problem. he is a little bit crazy, is not trustworthy, tries to get the best deal for himself -- not necessarily for his people, but for himself. not aneceptive and honest broker. you see that off and on in these backroom middle eastern countries more than you do anywhere else. host: leading us to the headlines today in the paper about the afghanistan deal that john kerry is trying to negotiate along with nato, getting karzai to sign it. the headline in "the washington post ," is that it is in peril. it has been in peril the whole time. it is going to hurt the international community's help afghanistan. people will not invest billions of dollars if they do not know where the money is going, if it is just going into the corrupt pockets of an afghan official. i do not know what the problem of karzai is. i truly do not. for all the help, the money, the lives that the international community has given to make themselves safer because afghanistan was the hot spot of international terrorist the pakistan with its nuclear capability, clearly it
remain in afghanistan beyond 2014, hamid karzai had signing the status of forces agreement. in washington, "the associated press" that the consumer finance watchdog is expanding its oversight of sallie mae and other companies. a rule issued today by the consumer financial protection bureau extends that agencies supervision to non-companies that have lenders. the cfp be overseas banks and service student loans, but most of the end from the white house, president obama will focus on the benefits of the health care law he will be flying by the white house says have benefited from the overhaul. he will remind american fork discrimination against those with preexisting conditions. we'll have coverage of that at the white house later today in our commitment network, c-span 3. house judiciary committee waiting to gavel in. we stay here live on cease and two. -- c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversati
soldiers to operate there and how we would operate them and these are good international agreements. karzai is playing a game and i think he is figuring we want to the deal more than he wants the deal or he thinks we have to have a deal and i hope we don't play this game of chicken and turn away and walk away and i don't think that is where the mindset is. this deal is really important and by the way it sends a message both to our adversaries and their allies in the region that we are not just going to pac up and go home. that is not helpful given what has happened in the middle east. >> mr. chairman on behalf of sais and our audience here today want to thank you for taking the time with us, for showing us your depth and command of these vital national security issues and your bipartisan leadership on the committee and in congress. >> thank you very much. thanks for having me. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> he if you could all stay seated we are going to begin the next session right away with representative christopher van hollen. christopher van hollen was elected to congress in 2
to the floor to speak about the bilateral strategic agreement and the fact that president karzai has refused to sign the proposal offered by the administration. since we have been in afghanistan, 2,285 americans have given their lives for our country and 19,514 have been wounded. the time has come for congress to understand history. from the days of alexander the great to the british to the russians, no one has ever changed afghanistan. the american people are tired of the cost of war, both life and money. as i said yesterday, it is my hope that in early 2014, the leadership of the house will permit a debate and a vote on the agreement that will obligate our country to afghanistan for at least 10 more years. i realize that the vote will not change the agreement, because the president does have the authority, but this will give us a chance to represent the people of america who the majority are opposed to this agreement. it is unacceptable that we will continue to spend billions of dollars at a time, according to special inspector general, the waste, fraud and abuse is worse in afghanistan to
. no one has said that they are going to need to change it. president karzai has said he does not want to be
. particularlyan and provennt karzai have difficult to work with. now you are seeing comments from chuck hagel starting to say we might go ahead and pack it up. i think it will be interesting to see, this is such a politically delicate matter. to see where the white house comes down on this. we had a similar conversation to ago as we were packing up from a rack -- from iraq. the issue was whether troops were going to grant immunity from prosecution, and the pentagon agreed they would not leave any troops. so we had a complete withdraw from a rack. it looks like we might be going down that road in afghanistan, too. the next few weeks will be critical to that discussion because the dod needs in the next few months to begin to plant whether they will literally pack up -- to plan whether they will literally pack up every tank, soldier, housing unit, and put that back on a boat to the states or whether ony will leave the footprint the outskirts of kabul for the long haul. that takes a long time of planning and forethought. on ouroodson in florida, line for retired and active-duty military. see thei
. jones: the letter respectfully reminded the president that president karzai continues to thumb his nose in the eyes of the american taxpayer. we have seen many news articles reporting karzai refusal to sign bilateral strategic agreement that this administration has proposed, an agreement that would obligate united states money and united states troops for at least 10 more years in afghanistan. in an associated press article printed in my state paper tiled "afghanistan president delays deal," the subtitle goes on to read, "u.s. says it will pull out troops if security agreement isn't signed." mr. speaker, it is my hope that the house will encourage the president to pull our troops out and stop spending money we do not have in a country that does not even want our help. furthermore, it's my hope that the house and senate leadership will in 2014 allow congress to vote on this issue of the bilateral strategic agreement. mr. speaker, it is wrong that the afghan parliament may vote on whether they want this agreement with the united states, but the house and the senate that represent the amer
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7